1 2025:CGHC:13422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1651 of 2025 1 - Sandeep Panna S/o Shri Pascal Panna Aged About 37 Years Assistant Manager At District Trade And Industry Center Baikunthpur District - Korea (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Joint Secretary Commerce And Industry Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Deputy Secretary Commerce And Industry Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director Directorate Of Industry Udyog Bhawan Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The General Manager District Trade And Industry Center Baikunthpur (Office At Collectorate Premises) District - Korea (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 31/12/2024 (Annexure-P/5) whereby the representation made by the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.21 17:37:59 +0530 2 petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6379/2023 has been rejected on the ground that the circular dated 12/08/2022 whereunder it has been provided that the employees under probation shall not be transferred, is only applicable to the Technical Education Department, and consequently, impugned relieving order dated 28/02/2025 (Annexure-P/6) has been passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the respondents’ authorities have assigned the reason that the circular dated 12/08/2022 is only applicable for Technical Education Department and since it is of the year 2022, and the transfer order was passed on 01/09/2023, as such the same would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. He submits that the transfer Policy itself provides that the employee under the probation shall not be transferred and the same was applicable for all the departments of the State. He refers a document issued by the General Manager dated 08/10/2024, whereby it has ben certified that the petitioner is under probation, therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P/5) has been passed in accordance with the policy and there is no illegality in the order impugned, as such, the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the order impugned as well as the Policy dated 12/08/2022. 5. From perusal of the Policy dated 12/08/2022, it is quite vivid that under 3 the Special Note heading in Clause Section, it has been provided that the employee who are under probation shall not be transferred and the said circular is meant for all the departments of the State Govt. Further, it has been informed that the said provisions under the Special Note is still prevailing in the State of Chhattisgarh. As such, the orders impugned dated 31/12/2024 (Annexure-P/5) and 28/02/2025 (Annexure-P/6), in the considered opinion of this Court, are absolutely not correct and are in violation of the said policy. 6. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 31/12/2024 (Annexure-P/5) and 28/02/2025 (Annexure-P/6) are quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul